Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!APEE.OGI.EDU!mehuld
From: mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Moderation (Re: SCI.philosophy.objectivism)
Message-ID: <9002042318.AA15297@apee.ogi.edu>
Date: 4 Feb 90 23:18:07 GMT
References: <7450@tank.uchicago.edu> <9002040025.AA12193@apee.ogi.edu> <.1J1O5Cxds13@ficc.uu.net>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR
Lines: 54

In article <.1J1O5Cxds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <9002040025.AA12193@apee.ogi.edu> mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) writes:
>> Please note that the so called "sci diehards" (of whom I happen to be
>> one) have vigorously opposed *any* moderation.  If our purpose was not
>> to welcome any dissent or criticism, we would have actively supported
>> moderation.

>What does toleration of dissent or criticism have to do with moderation? There
>have been plenty of cases where moderators have posted messages highly critical
>of themselves... let alone the subject matter of the group or their personal
>opinions. Have a look at comp.dcom.telecom some time. A paragon of moderated
>groups.

The person moderating the newsgroup dictates what the purpose of the
newsgroup is and what is proper to it and what is not.  The fact that some
moderators do a good job does not necessarily make a case for moderation.
Given the amount of controversy on the issues of Objectivism, it is not
likely that just anyone will do a good job. 

>Of course you need the *right* moderator. From evidence in this group I'd
>suggest T. William Wells. He seems the only objectivist with a truly open
>mind.

Ah, but I have seen the messages by him here where he has already said
explicitly, to some sci proponents that they are ignorant or don't use
their faculty of reason etc.  I don't think he understands Objectivism
but if he is the moderator, he is the one who will decide what is proper
to the future newsgroup and what is not.  I can be certain that under
those circumstances, my views and views of several others would be simply
edited off as "flames" or "inappropriate".

The point is that no one single individual or group of individuals should
get to decide what belongs to a group and what does not.  It IS possible
to maintaing a quality newsgroup *without* moderation.  I have been
reading sci.philosophy.tech for quite some time and there are very few
flames or out of line postings there.  The contributors voluntarily
maintain a good quality.  It is not also that topics there are not
controversial.  Recently, there was a big debate about "can machines
think" which was very controversial and there was a lot of discussion
on it.  But I didn't see flames.   I think it is largely upto the
contributors of a newsgroup to maintain its quality.  If flames and
hostility is simply ignored, the flamers will ultimately go away or
not get any attention (objections to the contrary notwithstanding).
There is no reason to limit controversy on a subject.  The groups are
for discussions and controversies are most often the source of debates.
The question is only to delimit the discussion to the subject matter
of the group.  I think this can be accomplished without moderation.

-- 
--Mehul Dave--                          (INTERNET :- mehuld@apee.ogi.edu)

"For I lean on no dead kin, my name is mine for fame or scorn
And the world began when I was born and the world is mine to win" 
							  --Badger Clark--